Session 1: General Session
Julia Snyder, Westcott House/University of Cambridge, ‘Talking about Jews and Jewishness in Acts’
This paper will reflect on the variety of different ways that scholars talk about Jews andJewishness in Acts. For some, Acts is a blatantly anti-Jewish text. For others, it is a document best read “within Judaism,” with a positive stance toward Jewishness. Part and parcel of such assessments are questions about the murder charge in Acts, Luke’s use of the phrase “the Jews,” debates about authorship, and the well-established tradition of reading Acts as a “Christian” text. This paper will discuss some of those particular questions, as well as reflecting on what might account for the persistence of such diverging perspectives on this intriguing book.
Peter Hansum, University of Oxford, ‘“So That They Would Search for God, and Grope After Him”: The Areopagus Speech (Acts 17:16–34) as Lukan Staged Partial Recognition’
The Areopagus address has generated diametrically opposed interpretations, oscillating between readings that emphasise its convergence with Hellenistic philosophy and those that highlight its rootedness in the biblical-prophetic tradition. This paper argues that both dimensions must be held together. Luke deliberately sustains a tension between universalist and particularist epistemology. This dialectic operates at three levels: the speech’s polyvalent language and double entendres in its narrative framing, its concurrent invocation of both Hellenistic and biblical “grammars of life,” and an asymmetric structure in which an extended universalising movement (vv. 22–29) reaches its unexpected telos in the particular story of Christ’s resurrection (vv. 30–31). The threefold audience response in v. 32, and particularly the middle category, those who say “we will hear you again,” is then read as the narrative enactment of this tension, an instance of genuine but incomplete acknowledgement of the gospel’s truth claims.
Session 2: Panel review
We are delighted to have a panel discussion on James Morgan’s book: Perceptions of the Divine in Greek Historiography:A Hermeneutical Dilemma from Herodotus to Luke, Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 65, Basel: Schwabe, 2026 (Open access from 8 June onwards). Our panellists are Loveday Alexander (University of Sheffield, emerita), Steve Walton (Trinity College Bristol), and Edward Armstrong (University of Sydney)
Book abstract: Writing history in the shadow of the Homeric tradition and drama, Greek historians contended with each other about issues such as the choice of subject, genre, and style. A persistent question concerned the legitimate use of perceptions and experiences of the divine sphere in historical discourse. A hermeneutical dilemma arose from this and was approached in different ways from the inception of Greek historiography with Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon, continuing well into the first century CE with authors such as Flavius Josephus, Plutarch, and Luke. This book surveys this enduring feature of history-writing, proposes an interpretative narratological model for reading historians theologically, and then applies it to the works of Herodotus and Luke, who, despite their differences, exemplify how historiography exhibited tradition and innovation through theological reflection for their audiences’ edification and entertainment.
Session 3: General Session
Liam Carlton-Jones, Australian Catholic University. ‘Psalm 2, Enscripturalisation, and the Presentation of Roman Authorities in Acts’
My paper argues that Luke’s portrayal of Roman authorities in Acts is shaped decisively by his scriptural imagination, particularly his reception of Psalm 2. Focusing on Acts 4:25–28 and 13:33–34, I show how Luke reads Psalm 2 as providing a prophetic-eschatological narrative logic, a cosmic drama, that frames Rome’s identity in relation to the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. In Acts 4, Ps 2:1–2 is used to scripturally locate Roman authorities among the ‘nations’ responsible for Jesus’s death, while in Acts 13 Ps 2:7 is interpreted as a prophetic declaration of Jesus’s centrality to God’s unfolding purposes. Building on this foundation, I argue that Luke’s wider depiction of Roman authorities throughout Acts is shaped by the interpretative horizon of these receptions of Psalm 2. To describe this dynamic, I coin the category of ‘enscripturalisation’, highlighting Scripture as a formative source for Luke’s presentation of Roman authorities in Acts, an often-neglected dimension in Lukan studies.
Cambry Pardee, Pepperdine University, London, ‘The Sabbath Year and the Death Penalty in the Story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 4:32–5:11)’
The lethal punishment of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1–11 has been read as a cautionary tale, as a warning about transgressing against God’s holiness, and as evidence of God’s pugnacity. I suggest that this story, along with Acts 4:32–37, is best interpreted against the backdrop of the Sabbath Year as described in Deuteronomy 15:1–18 and the Deuteronomists’ conception of capital punishment as community deterrence. The radical generosity of the community of believers in Acts is an enactment of the sabbatical year. The claim that “there was not a needy person among them” (Acts 4:34) echoes Moses’s assertion of plenitude during the Sabbath Year (Deut 15:4). Where Barnabas is the paradigm of generosity (Deut 15:11), Ananias and Sapphira are guilty of stinginess (Deut 15:7, 9). Their deadly punishment functions as a deterrent when the community hears the story and responds with fear (Acts 5:5, 11). This pattern of hearing and fearing is associated with the death penalty throughout Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 13:11, 17:13, 19:20, 21:21). These Deuteronomistic intertexts clarify and refine the interpretation of the challenging story of Ananias and Sapphira.
Andrei Matei, Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University of Bucharest, ‘When Actions Speak Louder than Speeches: Barnabas as the Archetype of the Silent Leader in the Acts of the Apostles’
In the Book of Acts, speeches dominate the narrative landscape and traditionally define apostolic leadership. However, Barnabas, explicitly introduced as the “Son of Encouragement” (paraklēsis, Acts 4:36), presents a striking literary paradox. Despite his foundational role in the early Church’s geographical and theological expansion, the Lukan narrative records no individual direct speech from him. This paper argues that Barnabas functions as the archetype of the “silent leader,” whose paracletic authority is established through decisive actions rather than rhetorical displays. By employing narrative criticism, this study examines key junctions in Acts: Barnabas’s financial sacrifice (4:37), his crucial vouching for the newly converted Saul in Jerusalem (9:27), his authentication of the Gentile church in Antioch (11:22-24), and his pastoral advocacy for John Mark (15:37-39). Through these silent but pivotal interventions, Barnabas acts as a vital theological catalyst and institutional stabilizer. Ultimately, this paper demonstrates how Barnabas’s effective leadership subverts conventional Greco-Roman rhetorical expectations, offering a unique Lukan paradigm of pastoral authority rooted in transformative action rather than eloquent speech.